If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:23:58 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: -snip- I can't tell in the Task Manager what should not be running. I only wanted you to check how much ram you were using... run your normal operation and see what you use. As for tasks, you can kill most of the ones under your own name, except Explorer and of course the programs you are using. Unplug the net if you want better speed! (Google search the task names to find what they are.) You think upgrading to Win 7 Pro will give me more speed than XP? That's a tough question! With the hardware you have now, it might not even run! I don't have 7 as of yet but I do have a Vista machine, and some hardware that won't run under it... IDE add-on boards and stuff... And Vista won't run on the machine I'm typing this on! XP won't be supported much longer so you may as well get Win 7 with a new machine. 7 Pro is required to run your old XP software. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... wrote: XP won't be supported much longer so you may as well get Win 7 with a new machine. 7 Pro is required to run your old XP software. Given that Windows 8 is imminent, would it not be worth waiting a few months and upgrading direct to that version? Oh no! Windows 8! I hope it's nothing like Ward 8. ;-) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
Alan Browne writes:
On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older 667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core? Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor? Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and multi-core/multi-thread CPU's. Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR. I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On 2012-02-21 09:43:35 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:
Alan Browne writes: On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older 667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core? Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor? Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and multi-core/multi-thread CPU's. Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR. I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me. You must have an odd view of things regarding Adobe & Apple. The CS5 edition of Bridge is a very different animal from its ancestors. It is fast, on my Macs anyway, and works so well I use it instead of LR2 now. I have the ability to rate, add keywords, and annotations. I can sort and search on many criteria including lens used, date & time, and many others. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:11:27 -0800, "Alan Justice" wrote: : "Mxsmanic" wrote in message : ... : Robert Coe writes: : : Extracting useful information from the process list in the Task Manager : is a : pretty specialized skill. I've used every version of Windows since 2.2, : and : I'm still not particularly good at it. To expect a professional : photographer : to save more time than he wastes in such an effort is a bit silly, IMO. : : You don't have to be an expert, you only need to get used to the machine. : Look : at the task list from time to time, and get used to what you see. If you : normally have 30 processes running, and one day you see a new one that : you've : never seen before, something has changed. You can then go out on the Web : and : look for the new process, and figure out what it does and whether or not : you : really need it. : : snip+++++ : : I currently have 37 processes running with no applications open. Seems odd. : The largest is 38 MB and seems to be related to the backup program I use for : the external HD (Retrospect). But it only backs up when I press the button, : so should it be in memory? If I End Process, will it muck things up? This : is my fear of any process. If things then [don't] work right, how do I : correct it? If you really feel the need to screw around with the processes, start by rebooting your computer. If it doesn't come up normally or something you need doesn't work right, then it's a good thing you checked first. Fix the problem and try again. Assuming the computer survives the reboot normally, it's generally safe to stop processes, as long as you don't change how they behave on startup or the authority under which they run. That's because if stopping a process breaks something, rebooting will set it right. Bob -- That's what I was hoping, thanks. Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On 2012-02-20 18:28 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes: I now take this opportunity to suggest you take a gander at a Mac and break free from Windows. Throwing away an entire application environment to change operating systems is rarely justifiable. Unless you are using the computer for only one thing, it's not practical to change from Windows to a Mac, or vice versa. Practical is not the point. Sanity was the point. I did it rather than buy a new computer with Vista. I'd been reading all the horror stories of people having issues with this and that driver. Wasn't worth the hassle right at the time I was looking at buying a new computer. Adobe transferred my CS3 license Gratis. MS Office ran a bit badly at first on the Mac. 2008 much better (I essentially got it for free). MS Fusion allowed me to continue some apps under WinXP during the transition. (And a Win box was kept for a couple years too, but used less and less). I hardly use WinXP anymore except for some programs I wrote in the past that I haven't edited and compiled for the Mac. Not worth it yet (lot of display stuff that won't port well). You can always run your Windows license on the Mac under Bootcamp, Fusion($), Parallels($) and others(free) to make the transition. Or you can run Windows even faster on its own, on a PC instead of a Mac. WinXP under Fusion runs more than fast enough for most uses - esp. when you're in transition away from it; and esp. when the new Mac is probably a good step quicker than the old PC. The point here is transition. Not long term. I use Fusion, but recent tests show that Parallels is a faster system - I'd get that if I needed a new virtualizer. OTOH, Fusion hosts any x86 OS (Linux, Sun OS, etc.) - Parallels hosts only Windows (IIRC). Windows runs fine by itself, and faster than any other virtualizing environment. Not the point - it is there for the transition - and as I say above, the new machine is much quicker than the prior so the loss in speed from virtualization (very minor) is not noticeable on the new machine. And if you partition the WinXP under Fusion it is pretty much as if on its own machine. You can transfer your Windows photoshop license to Mac too. If you stay with Windows, you don't have to. Doesn't matter - you can't present it (above) as a "an application environment" issue not to leave when it is a 0 cost effort. Using it on either system is virtually the same. Also, iMac's come with very high quality displays that are very sharp and have excellent colour calibration right out of the box. You can get high-quality displays from many vendors for PCs. For a lot of dollars more ($400 - $800 typically). The displays that come in a combo are usually low end. Or if they are high end the the combo is expensive. If you get a Mac, order it with minimal memory and update that yourself with mail order modules (various good sources). Much cheaper (no effect on warranty). Or stay with a PC. Or don't. Did you really need to add that since your position is already clear? I'm not suggesting that image processing on the Mac is quicker for a given CPU/Mem configuration, it's pretty much a wash in most cases. So why bother switching to a Mac? For some people, computers are tools ... not religions. Me too. OS X is just a solid OS. Further, I don't think much about whether the A/V software is up to date on my principal machine. Integration with other devices is seamless compared to he jumbled confusion of Windows. The system is generally consistent all the way through. Vista was a disaster and drove me away from Windows. Just passing on the joy. If you go through life doing the same things, you get the same results. Change is good. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On 2012-02-21 12:43 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Alan writes: On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older 667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core? Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor? Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and multi-core/multi-thread CPU's. Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR. I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me. I use Bridge all the time and it is very quick to look at new photos, esp. since it is under Bridge that I import them into the computer and convert to DNG. So I'm seeing them as they are hauled in and converted. Very quick on this computer. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Noons" wrote in message ... Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM: So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the difference?) DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for the images you are processing. How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0. -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:30:36 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: "Noons" wrote in message ... Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM: So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the difference?) DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for the images you are processing. How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0. I doubt if you have USB 2. At the best you will have USB 1.1. What you are trying to do will improve the performance of your computer in the same way you can improve the performance of your car by fitting it with fat tires mounted on mag wheels. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:30:36 -0800, "Alan Justice" wrote: "Noons" wrote in message ... Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM: So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the difference?) DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for the images you are processing. How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0. I doubt if you have USB 2. At the best you will have USB 1.1. What you are trying to do will improve the performance of your computer in the same way you can improve the performance of your car by fitting it with fat tires mounted on mag wheels. Regards, Eric Stevens Oh yeah, sorry. My invoice does not say which USB. Pchased Aug. 2004. But the question is will that type of port allow for a fast enough file access (using Canon DPP) with a drive with a fast access speed? -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computer | Irby | Digital Photography | 194 | March 19th 07 12:38 PM |
Computer?? | jd | Digital Photography | 46 | October 23rd 06 10:58 AM |
For the computer geeks.... | secheese | Digital Photography | 1 | January 12th 05 03:05 AM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | HRosita | Digital Photography | 5 | January 10th 05 09:38 PM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | Tim Forehand | Digital Photography | 16 | January 10th 05 02:23 PM |